ALEXANDER v. LONG, No. 1:2023cv00005 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/7/2023. (zmrl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ALEXANDER v. LONG Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LIAM ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, v. ANN LONG, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 23-00005 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on its initial review of the Complaint, ECF No. 1, and application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. “For jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be complete diversity between the parties, which is to say that the plaintiff may not be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.” Bush v. Butler, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978)). It is a “well-established rule” that in order for an action to proceed in diversity, the citizenship requirement must be “assessed at the time the suit is filed.” Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991). To that end, “the citizenship of every party to the action must be distinctly alleged and cannot be established presumptively or by mere inference.” Meng v. Schwartz, 305 F. Supp. 2d 49, 55 1 Dockets.Justia.com (D.D.C. 2004). An “allegation of residence alone is insufficient to establish the citizenship necessary for diversity jurisdiction.” Novak v. Cap. Mgmt. & Dev. Corp., 452 F.3d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiff, a resident of Atlanta, Georgia, has sued a resident of Decatur, Georgia. See Compl. at 1-2. In the jurisdictional section of the form complaint, id. at 3, Plaintiff checks the federal question box and lists personal injury as the nature of suit. Plaintiff has not invoked the U.S. Constitution, federal law, or a U.S. treaty to establish federal question jurisdiction. Nor has he pleaded facts establishing diversity jurisdiction to prosecute the personal injury claim in federal court. Therefore, this action will be dismissed by separate order. _________/s/_____________ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge Date: February 7, 2023 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
